Neurons Created Directly From Skin Cells 231
alx5000 writes "The Times is running a story about a neurologic breakthrough that could revolutionise treatments for conditions such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's: Neurons have been created directly from skin cells for the first time. Quoting neurobiologist Professor Jack Price: 'This suggests that there are no great rules — you can reprogramme anything into anything else.' The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research."
That's awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm happy for those with MS & Macular Degeneration...
There is Hope!
(Just not the "Obama" kind of hope...)
I'm curious...
Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers, as well?
Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply (Score:3, Insightful)
If the implications pan out, not much longer.
I like stem cells, but feel that abortion is the most sensitive of issues and ought to remain free of any profit motive.
To me this breakthrough seems like a win-win.
Re:sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it. That joke in no way implied that my mom was fat or a whore. How is that funny?
Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply (Score:4, Insightful)
If you never do research with fetal stem cells, you'll never know what they can do. When the alternative to fetal stem cell research is throwing the fetal stem cells in an incinerator, don't we have a moral obligation to get the best use out of them that we can?
Religious issue (Score:4, Insightful)
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate. Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.
Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply (Score:3, Insightful)
For a while probably, at least until adult stem cells are actually proven to be as useful as embryonic stem cells and are able to be used interchangeably. Yes there are some uses of adult stem cells that have produced therapeutic results but not every therapy or study can be done with adult cells.
Furthermore there is not much of an ethical dilemma for using embryonic stem cells as they are not children nor will they ever develop into children. The problem is political and based in the morality of others which doesn't consider very deeply the question. The problem is that people often equate potential life for life, and this is wrong and ultimately produces evil.
For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives. I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.
Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry there was a "need" for embryonic stem cells? Was there a break through that I missed? I was under the impression that embryonic cells would be great because they can be turned into anything, and are ready to go right after they are harvested, but they have a very high rejection rate and have been known to introduce other problems.
That's why all techniques using stem cells use adult stem cells.
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, yes. The foreskin contains about 90% of the nerve endings on the penis. It's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it's done, only that everybody else does it. more info [indra.com].
Read, please. [wikipedia.org] "Barbaric" and "mutilate" are highly emotionally charged words. I'm a father. I've got two sons. I was circ'ed as an infant, as were both of my boys. I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc. I decided to go ahead, and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data. If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it. I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly. And no, not "everybody else" does it. The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing, actually. You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.
For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after. Some become suicidally depressed.
Which, by your admission, is a tremendously small number of the male population. And if you become suicidally depressed because you're having disappointing intercourse, I'm guessing it's not just about the intercourse.
Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced (Score:5, Insightful)
Really now. If what these guys are saying is true and any cells can be reprogrammed. What's the big benefit of harvesting embryo's?
What's the big benefit of incinerating them as medical waste?
Medical ethics and Religious ethics should remain separate. Point in case:
Go back a few hundred years and the study of anatomy was called "desecrating a corpse".
Our monkey curiosity has gotten us this far, lets not be arbitrary about what we keep doing with it.
Re:Religious issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Your choice of words "Choice" and "Anti Choice" give insight into who's choice you give deference to. Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.
And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)??
How come you didn't call it "Pro-Life" and "Pro-death" ?? By simply choosing your words, you've clearly tried to frame the "choice" into something more palatable to your feelings.
Here's my challenge to you. Stop calling it "Anti-choice" and calling it by "Pro-Life" for a year. The side hasn't changed, only your words, see if your view on the subject changes. I'm not even suggesting you change it from "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Death" or "Anti-life". Just stop calling it Anti-life and call it Pro-Life for a year.
You see, I bet you can't or won't be able to do it. And now you'll make excuses and attack me for even making such a suggestion.
After all, it is always easier to kill someone if you dehumanize them first. Jews are Pigs. Christians are devils. Muslims are evil doers. Blacks are apes. Women are property. Babies are fetal tissue.
Re:That's awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
If the beta-amyloid plaques do ultimately kill the brain cells, what could be gained by removing them? AFAIK the only decent route out and away from Alzheimer's is to synthesize replacement brain tissue via new neurons AND new glial cells, and then somehow retrain the brain to use the new nervous tissue to 'route around' the damaged areas. Stroke victims often undergo years of intensive retraining in order to relearn how to walk and talk, etc., which shows that the retraining approach works in principle to fix arbitrary types of brain damage. But, you have to have somewhere for the training to go, which is why the prospect of well-engineered replacement nervous tissue is so important. IMHO, it could in fact very well become part of an Azheimer's cure.
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not let your sons decide if they want to be circumcised? Why force what is essentially either plastic surgery or an amputation onto an infant?
I am a firm believer in personal freedom. If adults want to be circumcised, I see no reasons they shouldn't be allowed to be, whether they are male or female. But doing it to an infant ... that's a line I'm very much against.
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply (Score:5, Insightful)
We also owe a very very large portion of our current medical knowledge to the Nazis. If it wasn't for their 'human experiments' we wouldn't know some of the stuff we know today.
Where do you think we got the 'how long you can survive without food/water' stats?
Doesn't mean it was right.
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
I asked all the questions
And did you get the real answers?
is it necessary
No, it is unnecessary
is it recommended
Yes, it is recommended
why
Because they can charge you for it, and then sell the foreskin.
You made the choice based on scientific data?
Which data? The data showing almost zero correlation between circumcision and reduced health risks?
It's mutilation. It's wrong. It should be illegal.
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
The Parent is confusing because it was a bit of lazy satire parodying a post above it which wasn't modded high enough to be visible. The parent replaced "Father" with "Mother" and "Sons" with "Daughters".
No need for stem-cell work-around (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply (Score:3, Insightful)
If you never do research with fetal stem cells, you'll never know what they can do.
To add to that, you know what research started us down this whole avenue, right? There are quite a few genes in the genome, but they only looked at 19
How did they come up with that magic 19 instead of like 100,000 in the mouse genome? Other studies that used fetal stem cells, or possibly IPsC cell studies, which themselves were discovered based on knowledge gleaned from studies in fetal stem cells.
If there had been no research on fetal stem cells we wouldn't have this, induced pluripotent stem cells, OR much knowledge about adult stem cells (which, not for nothing, haven't gotten us to the finish line yet, which is -why- research continues) and very little hope for anyone who has medical conditions like paralysis or parkinson's disease.
Instead we would have a little more incinerated biomedical waste from fertilization clinics.
Yeah, we really made the wrong decision there.
Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced (Score:4, Insightful)
Except it's not "religious ethics", it's simply ethics of people who have chosen to define the start of a human's life sooner than others.
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
Just fine, I imagine, considering humans evolved like that.
Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfect explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Well here is one you did not consider. About one in every few thousand babies born is transsexual. That is, the neurological gender of their brain does not match the apparent sex of their body. Typically these people will desire surgical "correction" of their genitals latter in life, and availability of skin is one of the key variables that impact the outcome. Now I realize this is a rare occurrence, but it does happen, and since I'm transsexual myself and thus know just how shit it can be, I can only hope that neither of your sons will turn out to be transsexual. Then again, with sufficiently many babies being circ'd it follows that it will happen to some.
I also imagine it may have an impact on other types of re-constructive surgery, should your sons ever have the misfortune of being hurt in an accident or something.
Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced (Score:1, Insightful)
Predicated on the idea that a clump of cells, with the potential to become a human, already possesses a soul. I call bullshit.